tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post3936091272585293846..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: Standing up for Duke & KC and TaylorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-35986796658983044682007-10-14T15:18:00.000-04:002007-10-14T15:18:00.000-04:00I am mistaken. My comment got bumped from p. 2 to ...I am mistaken. My comment got bumped from p. 2 to p.3 by people making comments on the posts prior to mine. I apologize to the Chronicle for my error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-51039108754522651212007-10-14T07:17:00.000-04:002007-10-14T07:17:00.000-04:00And the Chronicle deleted my comment. Seems to be ...And the Chronicle deleted my comment. Seems to be a lot of editing going there lately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-57985671588921753732007-10-13T19:18:00.000-04:002007-10-13T19:18:00.000-04:00My favorite comment on the Larrey article thread i...My favorite comment on the Larrey article thread is from "Grad. Student" who asked a question of Kasibhatia. Kasibhatia countered that if the student was genuine they should meet and talk. The student said.... in my words...do I seem stupid? <BR/><BR/>The response makes several very good points and I believe is a total & brilliant slap down of Kasibhatia.<BR/><BR/>Also interesting the Chronicle changed Larrey's title, again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-2007072266676687692007-10-13T08:00:00.000-04:002007-10-13T08:00:00.000-04:00Tortmaster (aka Gregory) has written a seven-part ...Tortmaster (aka Gregory) has written a seven-part analysis of the Listening Statement, and published it as comments 83 to 87 in the <A HREF="http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=dcb66275-be5d-4d54-9e0e-cc5e4c5710c0&startRow=51" REL="nofollow">comments thread to Larrey's letter</A>.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the next administration will recruit him to the English Dept.'s faculty, to research and teach textual deconstruction? His dissection of the Statement is a performace at a very high standard.<BR/><BR/>I added the following to that <I>Chronicle</I> thread, as a postscript.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Tortmaster's analysis of the Listening Statement is supported at every point by the text of the original document. Skeptics should make the effort to check.<BR/><BR/>Here [in online comments at <I>The Chronicle</I>] and elsewhere, Listeners, Clarifiers, and their allies are sure to keep proclaiming the harmlessness of the advertisement and the good intentions of its author and signers. Will they be as faithful as Tortmaster to the words that they actually published, and to the context in which they appeared?<BR/><BR/>Tortmaster highlighted one important contextual fact that had until recently been kept hidden by the Listeners: Prof. Lubiano's cover e-mail, stating "African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in <I>The Chronicle</I> about the lacrosse team incident."<BR/><BR/>Another piece of information mentioned by Tortmaster has received insufficent attention: that Prof. Lubiano wrote multiple drafts of the Listening Statement. Apparently, the staff of the <I>Chronicle</I> refused to run the earliest version(s) that Prof. Lubiano submitted, demanding changes that toned down the ad.<BR/><BR/>Neither Prof. Lubiano nor the Editors of the 05/06 <I>Chronicle</I> have made these versions public.<BR/><BR/>The discussion has, appropriately, returned to the question of what the Listeners meant. Airing these versions would provide valuable insight on this point.<BR/><BR/>If any of the parties are enjoined from such a release by the terms of one of the secret settlements that Duke has entered into: revelation of that fact would also increase public understanding of the intention of the Statement's signatories.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-82874917932714958302007-10-13T00:05:00.000-04:002007-10-13T00:05:00.000-04:00Such a wonderful letter by Ken Larrey!Such a wonderful letter by Ken Larrey!Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-74483355929322180112007-10-12T21:50:00.000-04:002007-10-12T21:50:00.000-04:00Good lord, someone actually read that twaddle?How ...Good lord, someone actually read that twaddle?<BR/><BR/>How do I know it is pedestrian frippery before dragging my consciousness through the numbing jargon?<BR/><BR/>"journal Transforming Anthropology, deconstructing the Taylor and Johnson narrative"<BR/><BR/>What more do you need to know? Second rate (if that) journal with the word "deconstructing" in the title.<BR/><BR/>I would rather listen to a platoon of drunken Quebecers recite the alphabet backwards at a sobriety checkpoint than read another "article" like that.<BR/><BR/>-ACAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-90875832516646815082007-10-12T20:56:00.000-04:002007-10-12T20:56:00.000-04:00I have read Piot's piece. I noted his constant re...I have read Piot's piece. I noted his constant references to "right wing", "McCarthyism", "Rush Limbaugh", "Bill O'Reilly" and others as reflective of KC Johnson's positions relating to the entire event that can be termed the Duke Lacrosse Frame / Hoax. And his references to himself and other members of the Duke faculty who came to the attention of Johnson as "progressives" as if only the thought processes held by such "progressives" are indicative of something that can be viewed as "progress." <BR/><BR/>Well, two can play your game, Professor Piot. For every Rush Limbaugh, I can give you an Al Franken or Randi Rhodes from Air America. For every Bill O'Reilly, I can give you a Chris Matthews. For every "right wing" blogger (such as you characterize Johnson even though he's not), I can give you an Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon, who became embroiled enough in her own notoriety relating to the Duke case to be canned from her position as John Edwards' blogger in chief in less than 2 weeks.<BR/><BR/>And "progressive"? Please. That's just a made up term to refer to "left wingers" who are trying to flee from the stench that is associated with the term "liberal." And that's too bad because not so long ago, being a liberal was a good thing. Piot and his ilk have so ruined the term that they now have to abandon it and name themselves to create the perception that they, alone, stand for "progress."<BR/><BR/>The fact is, whether Piot wants to admit it or not, Lubiano sent an email to selected other members of the Duke faculty asking them to sign on to an ad that was specifically addressing the issues relating to the "rape" that took place at the lacrosse party on the night of March 13-14, 2006. He and others can state that people "misinterpreted" the ad and they can try to turn it into something related to the larger picture (the rampant racism and sexism that existed on the Duke campus in general), but that's a hoax unto itself.<BR/><BR/>I daresay Ken Larrey has a lot more to offer the world than either Prasad Kasibhatla or Charles Piot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-52180136947287399492007-10-12T18:39:00.000-04:002007-10-12T18:39:00.000-04:00J-i-C,I usually refrain from "me too" remarks, but...J-i-C,<BR/><BR/>I usually refrain from "me too" remarks, but you should be commended for your comment at the Chronicle thread--both its content and its style. I think and hope that people unfamiliar with the details of how Duke's Hard Left faculty enabled the Hoax will contrast what you wrote with what the defenders of the Listeners and Clarifiers have to say.<BR/><BR/>I had trouble accessing Prof. Piot's 9-page essay directly from the Duke website. If others do as well, here is one solution.<BR/><BR/>Go to Prof. Piot's home page: <BR/>http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/CA/charles.piot<BR/><BR/>Under "Representative Publications," see #1, <I>C. Piot. "KC's World." Transforming Anthropology vol. 15 no. 2 (2007): 158-166.</I><BR/><BR/>Right-click or shift-click on <B>[PDF]</B> and save the 9-page PDF to your hard drive.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-56211371209864351692007-10-12T15:46:00.000-04:002007-10-12T15:46:00.000-04:00It is beginning to dawn on me that many tenured pr...It is beginning to dawn on me that many tenured professors on the Duke faculty are simply not very smart. The reason they do not argue logically from consistent facts is they do not know how to do so. The reason these professors do not back up their opinions with facts is they have little practice at it. It is not part of their job description, so to speak.<BR/><BR/>How else to explain the continuing inexplicable communications from Duke faculty on the history of the Duke rape hoax? Now that the emotions of last March and April are gone, what is left? <BR/><BR/>It appears the emotions of September and October are upon us. Why does critical reasoning seem to be in such short supply within the factulty? Perhaps there is some sort of selection going on, where the intellectually capable simply remain quiet. Too bad.Jim in San Diegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032079086884503680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-21027901111139449892007-10-12T15:43:00.000-04:002007-10-12T15:43:00.000-04:00John:I was raking leaves in the yard last weekend....John:<BR/><BR/>I was raking leaves in the yard last weekend. I turned over a rock and all sorts of bugs and insects scurried for cover.<BR/><BR/>My thoughts were immediately drawn to the race/gender/class anthropoids known as the G88.<BR/><BR/>Coincidence?<BR/><BR/>Ken<BR/>DallasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-19335888186736813692007-10-12T15:03:00.000-04:002007-10-12T15:03:00.000-04:00Reacting to Ken Larrey's letter, Professor Prasad ...Reacting to Ken Larrey's letter, Professor Prasad Kasibhatla says:<BR/><BR/>"From an intellectual perspective, his arguments are based on one fundamental premise - that the narrative put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson is accurate. I do not agree with this premise."<BR/><BR/>This is great, Professor. Voltaire would approve of your disagreement, and of your right to disagree.<BR/><BR/>But then I'd expect you, as a Professor and all, to present clear well-reasoned support for your position. For instance, how is "the narrative put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson" inaccurate? Please enlighten us yourself, make your own case, give us evidence.<BR/><BR/>Attacking the UPI 'narrative' by citing a third-party 'deconstruction' is more like shysterism or cant than an honest defense of an intellectual position. Show us your colors, Professor, put your cards on the table.<BR/><BR/>Until you do, the overwhelming evidence assembled by Taylor and Johnson in support of their assertions in UPI leaves your position intellectually naked and all too obviously vulnerable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-60830965951976120642007-10-12T14:25:00.000-04:002007-10-12T14:25:00.000-04:00We have watched for 18 months a whole series of am...We have watched for 18 months a whole series of amazing events go down in Durham as it pertains to the Duke rape hoax.<BR/><BR/>to me ths single most eye-opening, jaw dropping event has not been the unethical conduct of a petty prosecutor; nor the sensationalism of MSM media; nor the gullibility of Durham voters; nor the venality of a private DNA lab. I think we sort of expect these things to happen, from time to time.<BR/><BR/>Rather, the most amazing event has been the exposure of the anti-intellectual behavior of large parts of the Duke faculty. One would have assumed, I think, that argument based on facts and reason would matter. It is in the nature of intellectual freedom to follow facts where they may lead us.<BR/><BR/>Not within the Duke faculty, apparently. It seems the standard of many is to ignore inconvenient facts, and explain events not with reason but with something called a "metanarrative". <BR/><BR/>A metanarrative appears to have the convenient quality that it has no standards based on reason or induction. Truth is whatever its propagandist claims it to be.<BR/><BR/>This is the quality of a faith based religion. More power to those who hold their beliefs based on faith.<BR/><BR/>It is not the quality, however, of intellectual thought at a top flight university. Therefore, is Duke really a top flight university?Jim in San Diegohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032079086884503680noreply@blogger.com